Morality

Hi! So, my name is Daniel Hanson, and I think we might have met once at Saturday night volleyball when you visited New Hampshire. At any rate, I am a friend of your sister, Lisa, and she recommended this blog to me, so I figured I'd read it and leave some comments. Also, just so you know, I'm 18 and a triple major in political science, economics, and sociology at Grove City College entering my sophomore year.

So, moving on...

The position that the founding fathers were libertarianish is certainly not a new idea. They rightly understood that legislating morality is a planned doomed to failure, and that mankind's nature is inclined to rebel against that which is imposed upon them from above.

That said, to assert that our founding fathers were nearly libertarians would be to misstate the position both of libertarians and the founding fathers. I attend one of the most notoriously libertarian colleges country, and live in one of the most notoriously libertarian states in the country (visit the Free State Project to find out more). Libertarians agree with conservatives in that neither group desires to legislate morality, but libertarians have a fatal flaw, in my estimation, in the idea that no morality should be legislated. Hardcore libertarians don't just think government should be limited; they all together reject it as a legitimate source of authority.

Consequently, I've heard libertarians argue for the abolition of the police force, disbanding of fire departments, and dissolution of courts. They make some valid points, but they fact is that human nature is inherently flawed, and history shows that some morality must be legislated to prevent mankind from devolving into savagery. When libertarians argue that laws preventing murder, theft, rape, and so forth are wrong because they are legislation of morality, they fail to provide a viable alternative to ensure that the general populace is not murdered, stolen from, and raped.

The founding fathers recognized this flaw, and structured their documents accordingly. To say that the Constitution was founded on any sort of libertarian position is a contradiction in terms; government exists to keep mankind from destroying itself, and libertarians deny that such a constraint is necessary. A document that creates a state, then, is repugnant to libertarians. Before you get past the preamble, the document is explicitly non-libertarian.

More importantly, the founding fathers trusted the people far more than any other politicians had ever dared, but their trust only extended so far. There was deep concern at the constitutional convention that the people lacked the ability to govern themselves. One need only examine the Constitution to find evidence that the founding fathers still trusted a political aristocracy more than the common man. The original Constitution didn't allow people to elect their senators directly, the Senate holds the power of impeachment, representatives are indemnified to the public for things they say in debate, and the states are stripped of several vital powers (see Article I, section 10). From the Constitution, we get the Electoral College, the basis for future fiat currency, and the power of executive appointment. To assert that the Constitution was a libertarian document is a tentative proposal at best.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, more closely resembles libertarianism, but it too has some items to note. For one, the DOI intentionally goes farther in granting citizens freedom than the founding fathers themselves were actually prepared to relinquish.

Compare the statements like "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" to how much executive power Jefferson actually abused as President (for example, waging war in Tripoli and buying the Louisiana purchase). The DOI is a reactionary document, and while its philosophy is stellar, it has never been implemented fully in any government at any place at any time, and it never will be. The DOI was written to make a point to the king and declare a major political paradigm shift; it was intentionally not a code of law.

And so, the founders were conservative by today's standards, but not libertarian. Also, by the standards of their time, they were flaming liberals.

That said, as a conservative, I think standing against some of the non-interventionist policies libertarians advocate often makes far more sense than swallowing the pill of small government. More importantly, I think legislating some morality (murder, rape, etc) is necessary to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."

In light of this discussion, I'd be interested to hear which leaders you think have been conservative. Reagan, for instance, is widely regarded as the picture of modern conservatism, but he expanded military spending explosively, allowed Volcker to considerably tighten government control over monetary policy, propped up social security, signed arms treaties without congressional approval, ignored his pledge to cut entitlements, expanded debt markets on Wall Street, bailed out the savings and loan industry, expanded FDIC coverage, added a cabinet-level post, and so on. He took a more laissez-faire approach on social issues, however. Both Bushes, by contrast, has relinquished control of the economy to businesses (sort of...I've yet to study a President who didn't somehow mess up the economy with his monetary policy), but took hard-line moral positions, fighting against things like homosexuality, abortion, and stem cell research.

The conservative believes government functions best when it is actually manageable and accountable. The libertarian believes such a thing is impossible. The moral debate must operate within those parameters.


Sorry about the length. I guess I'm not that brief. :-P

I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, and I would like to do it justice with one of my own. I'm really busy right now with a summer class, but I will try to get to you as soon as I have a free moment.

I do believe you are stretching the concept of libertarianism to anarchistic proportions. I'd like to go into why Reagan is my model of conservatism in light of your examples as well, but I need more time. And no, I don't believe Bush is the model at all (and the liberals this election have made him their straw man and that lug we nominated is playing right into it). Again, thanks very much; I really appreciate the insight from an intelligent person. I look foward to talking in more detail soon.

Sounds good.

By the way, it has been my experience that the ultimate good for government in a libertarian world is protection of private property. That extends further (sometimes) to things like murder and whatnot because everyone has the right to be the owner of his or her own body. So yes, while I may have stretched libertarianism to anarchist proportions (though I know a good number of libertarians who would have agreed with my portrayl), I still think that looking at our founding documents subverts the libertarian position.